dai_hunter

She is probably getting cut to ribbons (that�s just fine in America) because she had the temerity to be showing a bare breast (that�s NOT just fine in America).

 

We all know what happens in those American slasher films = girl hears noise = girl decides to investigate while wearing little more then a t-shirt and pair of panties (if that) = girl gets whacked to pieces by homicidal maniac. Sort of a divine retribution for running around dressed like that.

 

Blood, gore, murder and mayhem = good

 

Bare breasts = bad

 

That�s the American way.

I run a Stylus 760 and put heavy card through it (300Mic card = about as thick as 5 sheets of ordinary paper = as about thick as two sheets of heacy weight photo paper). I do occasionally get jams (ca 5 in 100) from one of two causes, not sending the leading edge in with any curl upwards in the tray; and not sending it precisely straight into the paper pick-up rollers. In your case the watercolour type art paper may also be a bit "floppy" as some of the art papers are not treated and presure rolled in manufacture to stiffen / harden them, and that is intentional so the fibres can absorbe normal water colour paints and pigments. Could try a different brand, or more then one, of paper to get around that.

 

The specs on your 820 indicate that it can handle envelopes - and if it can do that it should handle heavier papers as well. Check your instr book for the tension / pressure settings for envelopes and see if the printer is now set to handle only lighter stock.

 

One of the advantages of Epson over HP, for example, is the ability to handle heavy stock in the Epson's straight line paper path v the HP's round-the-back-and-over-the-top paper path (a 180deg turn)

A bodyscape nude

England 2003

Ireland 2001

NCTJ is virtually (BUT NOT ALWAYS - see below) a must for a "new" journalist in the UK that wants to work for one of the major papers or broadcasters... that said, it is not a course for everyone.

 

NCTJ courses are examination based courses and cover a number of fixed areas - in the case of photojournalism only a very small part of which will be actual photography skills (if any) - the thrust of most NCTJ courses is in ethics, law, shorthand ability, dealing with public bodies and the courts, short reportage (writing) articles and feature writing, and several other areas. The fees for NCTJ training are not remissible either (if you are low income) and are fixed by the examining body... normally ca UKP 1000 for the year + any college specific add-ons.

 

This year, however, and in recognition of the limitations of the NCTJ course also taught at L'pool, Liverpool Community College (starting in Sept 2004) and possibly some others around the country, is working with a brand new 2 year "alternate entry" course (to journalism). They are calling it "broadcast journalism" and teaching the substantially same syllabus as the NCTJ (law, ethics and shorthand, ect,) in yr1; with practical skills in yr2 - including specific practical training directed at new media (web) broadcasting + radio broadcasting + television broadcasting. Students will NOT sit the NCTJ exams, however, but it is expected that they will be employable in the industry. My understanding is, further, that in future should someone completing this course choose to sit the NCTJ exams that may also be possible as most of the NCTJ material will be covered to the same standard as the NCTJ course (excepting one or two specific elements)

 

As a secondary note to this whole business of choosing between fine arts photography in college and journalism training in college NEITHER of which necessarily provides what a "practical" photographer needs - I am also aware that some public service organisations are teaching a 14 week (28 class days x 8hrs per) certificated (by the Open University ?) practical photography course. Recently, such a course was on offer in Liverpool by a charity organisation open to all applicants and specifically, in that case, in B&W photography - covering landscape; cityscape; people; abstract; and portrait photography - heavy on practical presentation and darkroom work as well. Some colleges offer similar courses on a certificate level - not necessarily a degree level.

 

There are more then just a couple of ways into the field of photography - especially on a practical level - so don't limit yourself to either the fine arts sector (limited to fine arts photography - with a stong emphasis on the word "art") or the journalism sector (limited in other ways but mainly for journalism training NOT training in photographic skills)- where perhaps neither will provide the training your really want.

 

Just something to think about.

Nate,

 

If you search Will McBride and not Will Mcbride you will get a lot on him.

 

In ten seconds, or so, I got 275 hits on his name [NOT by way of Google, however, but using an in-house multi-engine search method]

Depending on just how you arranged the exhibition you might have this option. If you can appoint an agent in the UK or there is already an agent that placed the exhibition for you then they should be able to, acting as your agent, secure a PL policy with you as the named policy holder (the insured party)

"...Mann uses a one-hundred year old 8" x 10" camera which produces photographs much like those past, haunting, and even mystical photographs associated with the Victorian era..."

 

 

COMMENT:

 

So Mann takes photos of naked kids on a 100 year old camera and is an �artist� for it� expecting some kind of special adulation and, in a legal sense, consideration� but a grandmother in Kansas takes pictures of her kid in a bathtub with an Instamatic and gets locked up?

 

Three words sum that up�

 

"pretentious"� "artistic"� "affectation"...!

There may be a solution you are overlooking IF you are seeing with envy the range of PC applications for which there is no Mac equiv...and just wish there was a way to...

 

Have a look at VirtualPC for the Mac - to run PC apps on Mac

http://www.microsoft.com/mac/products/virtualpc/virtualpc.aspx?pid=virtualpc

Problem is the light spectrum from the fluorescent tubes. Try this...

 

In PS: Image>Adjustments>Variations>more cyan ("more cyan" 1 click) + lighten (1 click)

 

Verified that there is no overall colour cast left by sampling the colour at the "whitest" part of the word Microsoft and that should now be very cloae to 255;255;255 (white) - and it is.<div></div>

There is an up side in the UK, however, now in the pipeline. New regulations covering the conduct of agency businesses will soon (comes into force 6 April 2004) outlaw agencies from > insisting < that models pay for anything other then the agency actually finding work for them. No up front fees - agency fees must only be paid from earnings; no modelling classes; no "seminars"; models will be free to obtain their cards, make-up bags ect., from outside the agency if they choose; agencies will be limited in what they are able to charge for "websites" or publication of the model�s picture and data in the "agency book" (so called "recoverables" "recoupables" or "charge-backs"); models will be free to fill out their portfolios with work from photographers of their choosing (rather then sole-sourced through the agency's preferred photographer(s));...and a number of other positive features.

 

Photographers, and for that matter the clients in more general terms, will now be brought, jointly with agencies, under the terms of British Health and Safety law, in that, they may have to make statements of risk and risk management in writing, and submit those to the agency in advance � and which the agency will now have to keep on record - relating to times when any model supplied by an agency is on their business premises or on a location. Information on �risk assessments�, for UK readers, can be found in the �Management of Health and Safety Regulations.�

 

For those working in the UK here is where you can read the new agency regs:

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2003/20033319.htm

 

The title is: Statutory Instrument 2003 No. 3319

The Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses

Regulations 2003

The rip-offs abound in the "fashion" industry. Here's one that will make you all cringe and grab your private parts - glad that it isn't you:

 

A photographer friend of mine in Scotland - he is French and has shot fashion work in France as well - has tried and tried to get local agencies to provide models for "test" photos to build both their portfolios and up-date his. He has had little success in that fairly small market ...but ...the last straw was when he did get an agency to provide a couple of models on what was to be a "test" shoot (supposedly no money either way - prints for the models). Here is what really transpired in the end...

 

He was told that, as a condition of the shoot, 1) there would be no payment from the agency for anything connected with the shoot; 2) there would be no release of any kind signed; and 3) he MUST send the finished prints to the agency and he was NOT, under any circumstances, to deliver them directly to the models.

 

Then he found out, almost by accident (one of the girls apparently mentioned it in conversation), that the agency was actually charging the models for having "portfolio work" done; while he was in fact fronting the entire cost out of his pocket - including: studio hire for the day; film; lab; ...and the prints.

 

BASTARDS!

Bill - more on the contract tern=ms and conditions:

 

Sec 2: Permitted Use. In general booking fees cover the right to use one image for one year from the date of the booking, in the UK only for the initial Permitted Use.

 

DAI's note: Assume the booking is for editorial / advertising purposes; the publication is a monthly but with a 6 month lead time (NOT unusual - e.g shoot in summer for a winter ad campaign)...the permitted use time frame then is only valid for use from the first possible publication date (booking date + 6 months) to a point 12 months beyond the date of the "BOOKING" - not the date of first publication.

 

---

 

Sec 8: ADDITIONAL FEES

To be agreed at the time of the booking.

 

8a). Usage. Additional fees are payable for the right to use the photographs (or reproductions. or adaptations of, or drawings there from, either complete or in part. alone or in conjunction with any wording or drawings, including electronic imaging) for all known or anticipated purposes other than the initial Permitted Use (e.g. Packs. Posters. Showcards, Record Covers, Swing Tickets etc). In genera the additional fees cover the right to use one image for one year from the date of the booking. in the UK alone for the purpose or purposes agreed.

 

8b). Territory. Additional fees are also payable for the right to use the photographs (or reproductions. or adaptations of or drawings therefrom, either complete or in part, atone or in conjunction with any wording or drawings, including electronic imaging) for all known or anticipated territories other than the UK. In general, the additional fees cover the right to use one image for one year from the date of the booking. in the territory or territories agreed.

 

Dai's note: Some of this is reasonable and negotiated at the start - such as the extent of use - and some is not. What is not is the restriction "To be agreed at the time of the booking" - as anticipated uses at the time of booking may not be the same afterward.

As worded, the agency could simply refuse to extend the uses permitted unless you pay them whatever "ADDITIONAL" fee they ask for - take it or leave it - unless those uses were negotiated at the time of the booking.

 

Second note: The restrictions are too tight - even derivative works fall within the restricted uses. They are milking this for every penny at the expense of the photographer's right to economically exploit his own work and copyright. Or the client's right to use material he has paid for.

 

---

 

9: To be agreed after the time of the booking

 

9a). Usage. It is the client's responsibility to notify the agent and negotiate additional fees (including extensions of existing agreements) for any usage which may be required or anticipated subsequent to the time of booking as per 8(a) above.

 

9b). Territory. It is the client's responsibility to notify the agent and negotiate additional fees (Including extensions of existing agreements for any territory which may be required or anticipated subsequent at the time of booking as per 8(b) above.

 

Dai's note: Ahhhh....MORE MONEY!

 

---

 

FASHION SHOWS

 

17. Payment of the agreed fee confers the right to make use of a model's services on the catwalk for the specified show and. other than for purposes of press reporting on the show, any other proposed usage of any photograph(s)/film footage taken at the show must be negotiated and agreed separately with (name removed) MANAGEMENT in writing in advance. This includes any photographs taken on behalf or by a sponsor of a show or any other party in any way associated with the show (to include backstage). No contract or models release is binding unless approved in writing by (name removed) MANAGEMENT Any other usage must be negotiated at the time of booking.

 

DAI's note: Stepping on the photographer again, and as for the client? MORE MONEY!

 

---

 

Not covered in the issues around Sec 20 (Copyright) noted in the first message:

 

TEST & EXPERIMENTAL PHOTOGRAPHY

19. A photographer is not entitled to use test and experimental photographs for commercial purposes unless specific arrangements have been made before the photographic session.

 

DAI's note: Well then who owns the copyright and what can they actually do with it? (other then use the paperwork or a pile of pictures as a door stop)

 

---

 

Other notes:

 

For all the photographic world's efforts to tell photographers and even writers and other creative artists NEVER to give in to "all rights" contracts - I can't think of a better example of a contract that I wouldn't sign then this one.

 

This is not a joke...you come out of this owning everything (as to copyright) but able to do nothing with it. I could liken it to buying a car but agreeing with the seller that, once it is delivered, you promise not to drive it...ever.

 

As many of the same agencies do business in the US as well as Europe - I bet you would find nearly the exact same crap in contracts made in other countries then the UK. Thats exactly why 8 or so models are suing the majors in NY for 20 years of cheating on the talent side contracts (taking too much in fees; double dipping fees from the clients but not telling the models they are collecting those additional fees; false accounting; and other stuff) - and the US Dept of Justice is investigating the same bunch for anti-trust violations in agreeing (amongst theselves) standard, non-negotiable, terms and conditions on booking their "talent" setting fees and the rest. Witness Elite (in NY) trying to sqirm out of their having to pay a potential judgement by going to Chap 11 recently.

 

The really interesting thing about these client contracts is this ...though the agencies demand these additional fees ...potentially over periods extending to many years ...there has never been ANY proof that they pass ANY of this money along to the models, as it were, in the form of residuals. But, yet, like the photographer there is also something of the model's work product involved - but the only winner is the agency.

Bob Blakley , mar 09, 2004; 10:40 a.m.

Hmm? There is a legally guaranteed right to privacy in Britain now, since the adoption of the EU Data Protection Directive and the supporting national legislation.

 

---

 

Does not apply here, or to editorial photography either. The appeals judges in the case of Naomi Campbell v Mirror said so for photography generally - and except in the concept of commercial confidentiality (Michael Douglas / Catherine Zeta Jones v Hello Magazine) - not for personal privacy either.

WARNING TO WATCH YOUR ASS HERE...with the fashion industry

 

The following is from a "standard" client contract used by the Association of Model Agents member agencies (ALL the major agencies) in the UK and copy-cated into client side agreements by many of the smaller ones who are not even AMA members:

 

"...COPYRIGHT

20. The photographer is not entitled to use any of the images he takes for any usage beyond that agreed under sections 2, 8, 9 & 17 above. The photographer to this extent agrees to restrict use of his copyright and, if the model agency client is not a photographer, the client is to draw these terms and conditions to the attention of the photographer and obtain his agreement to them before the shoot commences...."

 

You may NOT use "test" photographs, either, by reason of similar terms under that heading.

 

In effect they want control of your copyright and any future uses but are NOT paying for it - in fact, if you want to publish any work involving their "talent" you have to pay the agency more money - EVEN IF the model has long left the agency or the business! You will also note that there is NO time limit there either - so implicitly that agreement is FOREVER!

There is no "legal" or "legally guaranteed" right to privacy in British law - it is a concept in genral terms. As Scheider shot photos of her own child it wouldn't make a hoot if there was one, as "privacy", in concept, only applies to intrusions from outside a family.

 

E.G, Older children (teens) in Britain suspected by their parents of drugs use have argued the point, and lost, about whether a parent has a right to search their room and possessions for evidence of drugs. The parent in effect may conduct a search where no "authority", such as the police, can do so without a warrant. If the parent wishes then to supply the "evidence", if any is found, to the police with a statement implicating the "child" in a possible possession charge they may do so and no "right to privacy" issue can be raised as a defence to the search being unlawful.

David,

 

Sounds like the law as it applies to the theory of "unjust enrichment" (by unfair / unilateral contract or otherwise)...is that what we're talking about here?

Up close and personal - training to survive.

 

Shot on ASA200 neg film in a Minolta 3000i (auto) body whilst dressed in full fire protective gear including a breathing apparatus. Ceiling temp ca 1400f temp and at camera level ca 250f+. One shot of a series, the diffuser on the flash unit had melted by the time I got this particular shot.

Quang-Tuan Luong

 

Thanks! Well that rather makes my point if even the photo libraries won't do business with them for the exact same reason. I have seen that "artistic pretension" at work on photo shoots as well - the photographer and the model HAVE to be there, and maybe the little 'ol lady doing the hair and make-up - but I have yet to understand the need for the other 6, or 8, or 20 fools hanging around often with no discernable reason to be on the set. Their only purpose being, it seems, to tell the model, or themselves, Ooooh! Ahhhh!, how great and fabulous they are.

 

No one seems to take a photographer seriously any more. You are supposed to, and maybe wouldn�t even get the job unless, you have a �TEAM!� to work with. Make-up Artist; Hair Stylist; Fashion Stylist; Assistant (maybe 2 or 3); then the client sends along their �Art Director�; "Editor" (usually with one or more asistants); Marketing Director; and a couple of more people with no apparent title, or reason, to be there.

 

The real joke, to me, is what a �fashion stylist� is supposed to be doing on a nude calendar shoot! Come on ... that's a joke! Oh, wait a minute ... if not the fashion stylist then who is going to hang that fabulous sea shell around the model's fabulous neck. Ooooh! Ahhhh! Fabulous darling! Simply faab..u..lous!

 

Makes me want to puke.

Like "ugly", "art" too, is in the eye of the beholder Andrew

That's the problem with "artsy-craftsy" projects and publishers. Usually too many artistic pretensions at work. They can take forever, literally, forever, to make up their minds. The same thing with writing (which I also do) - submit the work and wait 6 months for them to even tell you if they will consider it (meanwhile, most of them will not allow you to take it to simultaneous submission with other publishers) then another 6 to see it in print, then the long wait post publication to get paid. You could be dead of old age waiting for some of them to get on with the project.

 

Unless you have thousands of images spread over hundreds of publishers, are independently wealthy, or have some other source of income, it is a loss making proposition to tie up marketable work for that long (hoping that you will be paid some day). You may as well let it sit in a photo library waiting (indeed hoping) for a sale.

 

On the other hand, I do commission and even spec work for magazines and news outlets, process it within hours, e-mail the images as lo-res jpgs, or text files for written material, and in two hours I have a go or no-go on their use. If it is a no-sale there I am free to go elsewhere. I also get secure date of publication +30 days payments. There is absolutely NO reason to wait 3, 6, or 12 months (sometimes a lot more) to be paid. If that is the case they are using YOU to fund THEIR project.

 

Be firm, tell them to get off their ass and make a decision. I actually looked at the lead times for books (part of a feature article) and found that they could be POD'd in less than 6 weeks - so my question for many of the others is what the he*l are they waiting for?

That image works for me Buck.

Here's the deal Ivan. Though I am actually a photo-journalist I am asked from time to time by a talent manager acquaintance to shoot new talent for him - as I am semi-retired I usually have time and can do it at little cost. I also do head-shots for student actors and some work with new bands, singers, dancers, and other performers. I ask for, and get, reasonable payment for the work considering that most of these groups are just starting out and have little money anyway, but I also get releases and retain all rights to keep my work from being ripped off.

 

Thereafter, the arrangement with the talent is that any photos can be used DIRECTLY by, and DIRECTLY under the control of, the girl or guy for their own promotion including reasonable repro rights but EXCLUDING any commercial use (CD covers, ect)... All of this work could be described as having "no commercial value" to me personally. The reason for the all rights release, however, and where I draw the line, is when an agent or agency (a third party) starts copying the work wholesale in ways I noted in my post above. There, they step across a line into commercial use where I demand that they (the agent or agency) license the images for the proposed uses.

 

Don't know where you are at or what ethnic groups you are shooting but it shouldn�t matter - the job of the photographer (if he agrees in the first place) is to make them all look gorgeous. I have shot both girls and guys; whites, blacks, Asians and Latins � every one is different and every one is a challenge and, oh! the personalities you meet. Thick? Here is a sample of a Black girl singer I shot that has a bottom that would make JLo look skinny - LOL

 

Good luck with your work as well.<div></div>

Is someone getting scr*wed here?

 

You know, in a way, I would like to see a bit more of what is going on here between this photographer and his relative who is the model agent. I have investigated some modelling scams (including working with the BBC in Britain recently on one such scam investigation) and this case is getting really interesting... here is how it could work... and often does in the murky world of the �beauty biz�... in 3 simple steps:

 

1) Girl (wanna-be model) goes looking for an agency. (Remember if they were REALLY any good, as super-model material, one of the major players would pick them up in a heartbeat � they simply don�t need some backwater agency to promote them in a third or forth tier market area)

 

2) Agency says to girl - "You need pictures and here is what they will cost you. You pay us and we'll take care of getting your portfolio done. Just go see XXX who is our photographer." She could be a "dog" but, hey, all they really need is her money even if they could NEVER, EVER, get her any work as a model.

 

3) Agency says to photographer - "Gee, you want to build up your portfolio? We'll let you "test" our models for "free"... all you have to do is give them prints for their portfolio."

 

Simple. A classic TFP scam run by the agency against the photographer. And, at the same time, a classic "photo mill" or �modelling website� scam against the models. One of the keys is that the agency then wants... no... NEEDS... to control or have possession of some of the original photographic media so they can follow through with promises to "promote" the models (the so-called database). The photographer has worked for nothing, indeed is often out of pocket, but the agency then quietly uses the images, all without reference to the photographer�s copyright ownership or even asking for a use license, to:

 

* create the agency "book";

 

* create agency �head sheets�;

 

* create head shots;

 

* create model's portfolios to send to clients (if there really are any) MY NOTE: Agencies have even been known to just make colour copies of the entire portfolio - they NEVER ask the photographer for even one additional print;

 

* advertise the models on their website (often a separate charge to the model);

 

* create printed (published as print or electronic) composition cards for the models ("comp-cards", aka "zed-cards"). MY NOTE: From experience the printers NEVER ask to see any documented copyright clearance on reproducing such images, relying, instead, on "hold-harmless" provisions in their contracts for the printing work.

 

Meanwhile, the "agency" is trying to assure the photographer, and goes to great lengths to do so, indeed it is IMPERATIVE that they do so, that they are doing him a great favour by allowing him to shoot their models for �free.�

 

What raises suspicions... or should in this particular case... is one of the key points made here: that the majority of the "models" are plain; ordinary; inexperienced, and probably not worth shooting in the first place.

 

One of the scam variations is that the agency will NOT charge for the photos if they don�t think they can get away with it, but does charge for putting the "models" on their far and away overpriced website.

 

There are definitely a couple of RED FLAGS� waving about in the breeze here.